K.K. Mathur and Others vs Union of India and Others

Valmiki J Mehta, J.

C.M. No. 13459/2013 (under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC)

For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed and the review petition bearing No. 252/2013 is restored.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 13460/2013

For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the review petition is condoned.

C.M. stands disposed of.

Review Petition No. 252/2013 and W.P.(C) No. 9953/2006

I have heard the counsel for the petitioners on the main writ petition itself because it is contended that petitioners did not give any consent for withdrawal of the writ petition on 13.2.2013. The facts of the case are that petitioners were employees of respondent No. 2/Indian Tourism Development Corporation. They were posted at hotel Ranjit which was run by the respondent No. 2. Under a scheme of disinvestment, respondent No. 3 was disinvested by the Government and the same was taken over by the private investors including respondent No. 3-Hotel Ranjit. This took place around the year 2002. Petitioners therefore became the employees of the private management which took over the respondent No. 3-hotel. Respondent No. 3 thereafter took out a Voluntary Retirement Scheme and petitioners accepted amounts under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2002 and thereafter ceased to be employees of the respondent No. 3. This writ petition has been thereafter filed in the year 2006 claiming the following reliefs:-

a) issue writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order of the similar nature whereby directing the respondents authorities to provide reemployment to the petitioners; and/or

b) issue writ of certiorari or any other/direction/order of the similar nature, whereby quashing the Hotel Ranjit Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2002 taken out by the respondent No. 3 on 14-11-2002 being null and void; and/or

c) issue writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order of the similar nature whereby directing the respondents authorities to provide full pension to the petitioners who had been retired under the VRS Scheme; and/or

d) Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order of the similar nature whereby directing the respondents authorities to provide medical benefits as per the Memorandum of Settlement dated 15-06-2002 and Office order dated 24-07-2000 and return the amount to ESI deposited by the petitioners;

e) Pass any other and further order/s as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case

The first relief which is sought is that respondents should provide re-employment to the petitioners. Respondents are Union of India which is respondent No. 1, Indian Tourism Development Corporation which is respondent No. 2 and Hotel Ranjit which is respondent No. 3.

Surely, Union of India cannot be asked to give any employment to the petitioners because no law is cited and nor does any law exists that if persons who were employees of autonomous organizations which were disinvested and such persons received monetary benefits under the VRS scheme from the private employer, thereafter, merely where such employees claim that they are in financial difficulty, Union of India must give them employment.

So far as respondent No. 2-Indian Tourism Development Corporation is concerned once again it is not understood as to how from an erstwhile employer, employment can be claimed once employment was transferred to the respondent No. 3, petitioners acted on the same and thereafter took VRS benefits from the private employer. Again there is no law that an autonomous organization of the State is bound to provide any employment to the employees who were employees of the erstwhile autonomous organization and which thereafter became a private organization. Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Others, has held that employees have no right to question the disinvestment scheme of the Government. In any case, petitioners having taken benefits from the private employer again cannot claim re-employment from the respondent No. 2. A Court of law is approached, whether in a suit or in a writ petition, to enforce legal rights. No such legal rights are found to exist as per the averments made in the writ petition because no provision of law or statute is cited and surely cannot even exist for providing petitioners employment as is sought in this case.

Respondent No. 3 which is private employer again surely cannot be asked to give employment because petitioners have taken from respondent No. 3 voluntary retirement benefit amounts and enjoyed the same since the year 2002 till the year 2006 when the writ petition was filed. In the judgment in the case of A.K. Bindal and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, Supreme Court has said that on taking of VRS benefits, and which is a golden handshake, the relationship of employer and employee is severed and thereafter no rights can be claimed against the erstwhile employer. Para 34 of this judgment reads as under:-

This shows that a considerable amount is to be paid to an employee ex-gratia besides the terminal benefits in case he opts for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and his option is accepted. The amount is paid not for doing any work or rendering any service. It is paid in lieu of the employee himself leaving the services of the company or the industrial establishment and foregoing all his claims or rights in the same. It is a package deal of give and take. That is why in business world it is known as ''Golden Handshake''. The main purpose of paying this amount is to bring about a compete cessation of the jural relationship between the employer and the employee. After the amount is paid and the employee ceases to be under the employment of the company or the undertaking, he leaves with all his rights and there is no question of his again agitating for any kind of his past rights, with his erstwhile employer including making any claim with regard to enhancement of pay scale for an earlier period. If the employee is still permitted to raise a grievance regarding enhancement of pay scale from a retrospective date, even after he has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and has accepted the amount paid to him, the whole purpose of introducing the Scheme would be totally frustrated.

(underlining added)

Therefore, none of the respondents can be asked to provide employment to the petitioners.

Second relief which is claimed is that petitioners seek that VRS scheme taken out by the respondent No. 3 in the year 2002, be declared as null and void. This is claimed on the ground that respondent No. 2 could not have disinvested in the respondent No. 3-hotel. In my opinion, petitioners are barred from raising this argument on two grounds. One is the ratio of the Supreme Court in the case of BALCO Employees Union (supra) and the second is that petitioners acted upon the transfer not only by continuing their services with the respondent No. 3, but also by taking VRS benefits from respondent No. 3. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to claim annulment of VRS scheme of which they took benefits almost four year prior to the writ petition by receiving substantial amounts. Petitioners are squarely hit by the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Bindal (supra).

Third relief which is claimed is that respondents should provide full pension to the petitioners as was payable when the petitioners were serving the respondent No. 2. This argument again will stand rejected in terms of discussion above and especially in view of ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Bindal (supra).

The final relief which is claimed is that petitioners claim medical benefits as per the Memorandum of Settlement dated 15.6.2000 entered into between the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the office order dated 24.7.2000 issued by the respondent No. 2 before disinvestment. Refund is also claimed of ESI amounts deposited by the petitioners. Once again this relief will be barred in view of ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Bindal (supra) because Supreme Court has clearly held that once persons take voluntary retirement benefits, and which is a golden handshake, the relationship of employer and employee is severed for all times to come and thereafter employees who have taken VRS cannot again claim any monetary benefits from the erstwhile employer. As already stated above, petitioners took VRS benefits in the year 2002 and have filed this petition in the year 2006 without any legal cause of action.

Finally, the petitioners argue that respondent No. 2 is an institution which is now covered under the schedule of institutions disputes of which with its employees have to be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and therefore this petition ought to be transferred to CAT. In my opinion, this argument is only an argument of desperation because petitioners severed their relationships with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and more particularly respondent No. 3 way back in the year 2002 and therefore the issue has nothing to do with the aspect of ''in relation to service'' as found in Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In any case, I do not find that this issue at any time was urged till the writ petition was disposed of, actually by consent but which consent the petitioners now claim they never gave and therefore I have heard the petitioners on merits.

There are certain frivolous litigations which lead to unnecessary waste of judicial time. Present is one such litigation. Petitioners very conveniently took huge amounts of VRS benefits. They enjoyed the benefits of the same. After many years suddenly petitioners claim that they are in bad financial condition and therefore they should be re-employed. Of course, I have already stated above, that the law which entitles the petitioners to seek re-employment is not pointed out to me. It is necessary that a strong message be sent to frivolous litigations which are initiated in Courts. The writ petition is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-. Costs can be proportionately recovered by the respondents in accordance with law.